The Studies Are In, and Obamacare is Failing Miserably

[lonewolf]

I always wonder why they dont install sprinkler systems in new homes when they are built, eventually reducing the demand and need for firefighters. Not getting rid of them totally but reducing the numbers and thus saving taxpayers money.

And this has what to do with Obummer care? Or is this just an attack on me because you don't like my opinion?

What do you do for a living? I mean since we are focusing on saving money and slashing jobs. Let's talk about how could we eliminate your job and save someone some cash. I'm sure you and your family would be thrilled about you losing your job...don't ya think? Just some food for thought.

[My Looh]

And this has what to do with Obummer care? Or is this just an attack on me because you don't like my opinion?

What do you do for a living? I mean since we are focusing on saving money and slashing jobs. Let's talk about how could we eliminate your job and save someone some cash. I'm sure you and your family would be thrilled about you losing your job...don't ya think? Just some food for thought.

Seriously? An attack? LOL!

If you must know, the subject came up on a very conservative talk radio station I was listening to about a year or two ago. A previous post in this thread reminded me about it and it also reminded me of my agreement with the idea.

But I really don't think I need to explain myself further.

If you took it as an attack then I'm sorry you feel that way.

[lonewolf]

Seriously? An attack? LOL!

If you must know, the subject came up on a very conservative talk radio station I was listening to about a year or two ago. A previous post in this thread reminded me about it and it also reminded me of my agreement with the idea.
.

This topic is about health care and not sprinkler systems and cutting of firefighters jobs, so, since I'm a firefighter, you obviously brought the topic up to get a rise out of me. For you to deny, is for you to lie.

But I really don't think I need to explain myself further.

You don't need to explain yourself at all. Your actions are self explanatory.

If you took it as an attack then I'm sorry you feel that way

DWL Yeah, right. Ok, again, and what was your occupation? I seem to have missed that post. Or maybe you don't work at all?

[My Looh]

I deliberately do not mention my occupation because for anyone who pays attention and puts two and two together, it my reveal where I work and who I am, so I choose not to reveal that info and end up like my old friend Marilyn.

But anyway, believe what you want to believe. Perhaps work on getting over yourself.

[RichD]

No luck involved. Just careful planning of not living beyond one's means.

so how do you plan to be only sick enough to use the value of the premium you pay into your health system?

[lonewolf]

I deliberately do not mention my occupation because for anyone who pays attention and puts two and two together, it my reveal where I work and who I am, so I choose not to reveal that info and end up like my old friend Marilyn.

But anyway, believe what you want to believe. Perhaps work on getting over yourself.

I must have missed that memo. I must ask what in the hell are you women doing that would possibly threaten termination of your job? I wasn't suggesting that you post your actual place of employment or your sexual partners and desires, just your occupation, as it would pertain to our conversation. Most of us don't behave in a manner on a public forum that would threaten our employment.
You must have something to hide and are ashamed that your exploits might came back to haunt you. And if I remember correctly, your old friend Marilyn posted information (like a dog in heat) relating to her sexual romps in Jamaica. Not a very smart thing to do on a public forum. Birds of a feather?

Wow! This is amusing. DWL Thanks for the laugh...

[lonewolf]

so how do you plan to be only sick enough to use the value of the premium you pay into your health system?

Is this another trick question?

I'm not following you. It's insurance. You purchase a plan that has extensive coverage. There is not a value based on limitations of coverage with most US plans. And you don't have to wait for procedures like you do in Canada. And there should not be, it's expensive.

Look Rich D, If you have been following my stance on health care in the US, you would know that I am the first person to say that the system needs to change, but Obummer care is not the answer. If any good comes out of Obummer care, it will be that it is a catastrophic failure and the US will be forced to find something that works, but until that time there will be suffering.

[kia027]

http://www.vanityfair.com/online/eichenwald/2013/09/republicans-know-obamacare-will-work

Great article

The lies are about to be exposed. And the Republicans are terrified of what the country will think when the veil of mendacity is torn away.

[queenb]

kia027, The following is my favorite part of the article that you've cited: Perhaps one of the most stunning examples of intellectual tomfoolery appeared on the Forbes-magazine Web site on September 23. The piece—which maintained that Obamacare would add a total of $7,450 to the average health spending of a family of four over the next eight years—quickly went viral as conservatives grabbed onto it as proof that the health-insurance program would wreck America.

Sigh. Unfortunately, this piece may well be the silliest, most intellectually dishonest piece of drivel to be published since the adoption of Obamacare. Where to start? The author of the piece—Chris Conover, an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute—begins by quoting Obama as stating in 2008 that his administration would lower insurance premiums for Americans by up to $2,500 a year for a typical family. (I’m not going to defend Obama’s argument—it, too, was a silly assertion.) But then— ah hah!—Conover points out that health-care costs are predicted to go up by $621 billion in the first 10 years under Obamacare.

Let’s expose the first problem in the simplest way possible: insurance premiums are not the same as health-care expenditures. Perhaps an analogy will help: I am going to give you coupons to save you $250 in your food purchases over the next year. But then I decide not to because—ah hah!—the grocery store issuing the coupons is predicted to earn an additional $62,000 more in sales during that same time. Catch the trick? I start by talking about savings in premiums—the coupon—and then compare it with total amount people are spending on food at that location. And the two numbers have nothing to do with each other! While the coupon probably causes the increased sales in part by bringing in more customers, it doesn’t mean the average cost for all shoppers goes up. When more people get coupons—in this case, insurance—there are going to be more expenditures—in this case, health-care costs—as more people flood into the market.

So, saying “when more people get health insurance, the amount spent on health care will go up” is sort of like arguing that when you dip something in water, it will get wet. Yes, when there are more people who can get health care, more people will get health care, so the amount spent on health care will increase. But Conover pretends there is some link between the obvious and how much people will spend on premiums. People who currently have policies will not be affected at all by this increase in health-care spending.

Then, Conover engages in some truly eye-popping sleight of hand. He takes year-to-year healthcare spending projections, divides them by the projected United States population, and then multiplies that answer by four to see what the average family of four would spend. No, really—that is what he did. He makes no accounting for the fact that the entire market has changed—that tens of millions of people who were previously uninsured suddenly have full access to the health-care market. What matters is not the population of the United States, but the total number of insured and how the addition of these millions of insured will affect health-care usage—and believe me, the probability that health-care usage will increase as more and more people get accustomed to having insurance is 100 percent. And remember something else: using health-care services means more health-care services will be used. Medicine keeps people alive; the greater number of people who have access to it, the longer they will live, the more they will keep accessing health care.

Last, let me deal with that “multiply by four” malarkey. My mother is one of those four. So is my 16-year-old. My mother spends, at the very least, 20 times the amount on health care that my son does. Comparing that “usage” is nonsense—you can’t simply divide the total by two and say “on average, they spend this much.” On average, Bill Gates and I are worth $36 billion, a fact that means nothing.

O.K. No death panels. No government takeover of health care. No change in who your doctor can be unless the insurance company decides to change things. No change in anything for people who already have health insurance. Medicare is strengthened. The growth of health-care spending is a good, not bad, thing that will have no impact on the currently insured.

Now, we need to address a few things like insurance rates and the benefits to all Americans for having the uninsured covered with health-care policies. But that is perhaps the most complicated area of this discussion of all, because—you know—facts are hard, while lies are simple. So I will save that discussion for part two of this discussion, to be posted next week.

One admission: there are critiques I could offer about Obamacare, and there are undoubtedly some challenges the program faces. But none of them come even close to the storyline advanced by the spurious campaign being waged by the Republicans. So, I’ve decided, at least for now, to sidestep these comparative quibbles. There is no reason for me to add chocolate sprinkles to the G.O.P.’s big, steaming pile of manure.

[applepie]

Is this another trick question?

I'm not following you. It's insurance. You purchase a plan that has extensive coverage. There is not a value based on limitations of coverage with most US plans. And you don't have to wait for procedures like you do in Canada. And there should not be, it's expensive.

Look Rich D, If you have been following my stance on health care in the US, you would know that I am the first person to say that the system needs to change, but Obummer care is not the answer. If any good comes out of Obummer care, it will be that it is a catastrophic failure and the US will be forced to find something that works, but until that time there will be suffering.

And seriously...........how many people that are working and can really afford to purchase an extensive plan when employers are not even giving raises or have raise freeze? Most companies purchase the cheapest plan and the workers pay weekly, biweekly out of their paychecks and also a deductible at each office visit. Majority have insurance but cannot afford to get sick.

[lonewolf]

He makes no accounting for the fact that the entire market has changed—that tens of millions of people who were previously uninsured suddenly have full access to the health-care market. What matters is not the population of the United States, but the total number of insured and how the addition of these millions of insured will affect health-care usage—and believe me, the probability that health-care usage will increase as more and more people get accustomed to having insurance is 100 percent

That's a crock of BS. You are forgetting or just don't know that Obama care(which is really Romney care) has been in place for years in the state of Massachusetts. Examine what has been written about the Massachusetts heath care reform program, which is the model for Obama care. It is a failure.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but facts are facts. The point that I am making is that we can look at the Massachuetts program and see the results of Obama care before it's implemented on a national scale. It's not an affordable system, and would sink the country further in debt. We need health care reform, but this is not the answer. Please, read the article from CNN Money that explains in detail the problems with the program. (Link below) The article destroys your arguement. It is based on facts from results of THE OBAMA HEALTH CARE MODEL PROGRAM that is in use as we speak.


5 painful health-care lessons from Massachusetts

FORTUNE -- The best guide to how President Obama's historic health-care legislation will reshape the nation's medical marketplace and fiscal future is the pioneering model in Massachusetts. The Bay State's reform program started in late 2006, and it shares virtually all the major features of the new federal plan

"Hence the pool of insured people gets older and sicker as the healthy drop out. That's what happened in Massachusetts, and it contributed to soaring premiums. The 2006 reform plan was supposed to solve the problem by requiring that everyone buy coverage or pay a fine of around $1,000. It worked, but only in part: Of the 600,000 uninsured in 2005, around 450,000 are now covered. But a large share of 150,000 who still lack coverage are young residents who choose to pay the fine instead of high premiums. Insurers are also getting socked by people who sign up for insurance to get expensive care mandated under state law, including hospitalization for childbirth or hip replacements, and then depart once the procedure is completed.
In the federal bill, the fines for going uninsured are even lower than in Massachusetts -- and anyone who can't find an inexpensive plan is exempted from all penalties. Hence the "adverse selection" problem could prove far worse"

.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/15/news/economy/massachusetts_healthcare_reform.fortune/index.htm

[lonewolf]

And seriously...........how many people that are working and can really afford to purchase an extensive plan when employers are not even giving raises or have raise freeze? Most companies purchase the cheapest plan and the workers pay weekly, biweekly out of their paychecks and also a deductible at each office visit. Majority have insurance but cannot afford to get sick.

Most companies are cutting employees hours and making them part time workers because they can't afford to pay the health care premiums mandated by Obama care. This forces the employee into government coverage.
And now the full time employee is part time, makes less money and loses more benefits that employers only provide to full time employees. So, how is Obama care any better?

[kia027]

Health insurance premiums went up by double-digit percentage points for small business policies in the state for four out of the first five years of the reform law, according to the Retailers Association of Massachusetts. Some of that is a result of rising health care costs, but some is also from additional coverage—such as mental health—that businesses must offer under both reform laws.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100723888

[lonewolf]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100723888

You are proving my point. Thank you.

[RichD]

You are proving my point. Thank you.

was this your point?

The thinking was that firms would rather pay the penalties for not offering insurance than to pay for the insurance itself.
But during the life of Romneycare, and even the year before, the percentage of firms with three or more workers that offer insurance rose from 70 percent to 76 percent, according to the Massachusetts Employer Survey.